Possible rules changes for 2009

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Now, you're just being silly. Do you really expect me to wallow through all the garbage that's been laid out to prove to you where the smell comes from. Not likely.

Let's look at these "sins" you're so positive and worked up about. "Kurt is selling A-11 materials after claiming he was not" What you decry as being so negative as "selling", might just as accurately be seen as distributing and recurring the cost of doing so. KB obviously believes (right or wrong) in his idea, and has every right to try and promote it and try and persuade others to accept and believe it.

"Kurt lied about approval with the NF for this offense when there was no such approval by the NF. Seems like a really insignificant semantics argument. Is suggesting a declaration that something is "not illegal" a whole lot different than being "approved", possibly a poor choice of words, but does it make ANY real difference?

"Kurt has repeated these lies on this website or other websites." Without a lot more specifics, I can't comment, other than to suggest very often the word "lie" is a really poor choice of words and a n excessive exaggeration. You might consider other words like; mistake, exaggeration, misunderstanding, stretch, spin that don't include the connotation of a deliberate and intentional effor to deceive or mislead.

"Kurt claims that officials all over the country approve of the offense." After spending some time on this, and other forums, I might question whether there is ANYTHING "officials all over the country approve of". Would this observation be an exaggeration? Yes, but would it have misled any official, who has been awake for the past 2 years, doubtful, so what difference does it make (advantage/disadvantage)?

Be honest, you can stack these, and other, transgressions on top of each other and they pose the same hazard as tripping over a sheet of paper. The indisputable fact is there is nothing that has been stated, suggested or inferred that amounts to anything more than someone trying to promote an idea, he apparently believes in.

Now, taking into account all that you stated above, why do you think he would join an officials forum in order to promote and make those claims?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Rut, I lost track. Have you been shown the example of your poor behavior?

Never mind, I see the examples he provided, and the answer to my question is a solid, "Not yet."

No, not one time.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The indisputable fact is there is nothing that has been stated, suggested or inferred that amounts to anything more than someone trying to dishonestly promote an idea, he apparently believes in will make him money.

I cut out all the BS, then I fixed it for you. You're welcome.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Perhaps I respond because I don't want the smell of your garbage to taint the stripes of my shirt.

So several States have outlawed this offense and vow to change the current NFHS rules. As we all know, they have the right to do whatever they want WITHIN THEIR STATE. Does any of that make this offense illegal under the NFHS code? I don't think so. Has the NFHS declared this offense illegal, I don't think so. We all vow to do a lot of things that never get done.

What did I say that was not true? Are you saying states cannot push to change rules now?

Originally Posted by ajmc

If you want to understand what you, and others, have said that was over the line, go back and read what you've written, with an open mind. It will jump up and bite you on the behind.

Why not give one example? I do not think you can read.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Are you actually going to play the victim's card, whining, "you have continually called me names all because I want you to prove what you say." Poor baby, you, and others, have been throwing bombs at this man simply because he doesn't share your view of an idea he developed, and when your bombs exceeded the bounds of professional curtesy and general civility that was pointed out to you, your feelings are hurt and your defensive fangs came out.

Not complaining at all. Just showing your behavior for what it is, while being a big hypocrite. BTW it is “courtesy.”

Originally Posted by ajmc

Understand something simple, because either one of us conclude something, or someone, was wrong, or behaved badly, that is nothing more, or less, than an opinion. I've shared my opinion, regarding the behavior you and others have chosen to demonstrate. You had the options to totally ignore me, and my opinion, consider it and apply it as you deemed appropriate, or defend yourself over and over and over again with the same bully tactics you were applying against KB. Outshouting, bullying, ridiculously trying to rally support usually doesn't work, when you're just wrong.

You are starting to get it a little bit (very little). And no one had to rally support for anything, they came to the conclusion on their own volition.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Nothing has changed on my end, from day 1, you and some others elected to step below the line, and I simply pointed that out. Since then, you, and others have chosen to try and pour gasoline on the fire thinking somehow that would put the fire out, not surprisingly it hasn't and doubtfully ever will.

One example might just put out the fire? Because I can give multiple examples of your comments towards me or others that you claim is out of line. I doubt seriously you will find me saying anything like that about Kurt.

Originally Posted by ajmc

If you want evidence, it's there waiting for you. Simply go back and read what was written, the tone in which it was intended and if you look with an open mind you will see where the discussion clearly dipped below the line of reasonable taste and basic civility. I can't make you see it if you don't want to look, and I'm sure as heck not going to waste time pointing things out that you have no intention of seeing.

No examples still huh?

Originally Posted by ajmc

Whatever KB has said, concluded, opined, suggested or inferred that you find improper or objectional IS ON HIM, but that doesn't give you, or anybody else license to insult, accuse or dispariage him in return. Whatever you choose to say in return is ON YOU, and is not his fault, my fault or anyone else's fault.

I have every right to point out what I want to. If I did not have the right, then the people of this site and other sites would have moderated my comments. Funny, you do not see anyone moderating my comments or anyone else's about Kurt do you?

Originally Posted by ajmc

We've all stepped over the line occassionally and most often correct things by simply realizing we may have, and step back. This nonsense has gone this far simply because you, and others, have elected to ride your high horse even higher, rather than simply step down.

Example please?

Originally Posted by ajmc

A final point, which seems to escape some, is that this is an "Official's Forum" and, as is always the case (whether we like it or not), how we choose to say what we choose to say reflects on who we are, not only individually but collectively as well, especially when we're dealing with a non official. We all have some responsibility not to embarrass each other.

I represent me, I do not represent or claim to represent everyone. You obviously do not represent anyone, you have not been doing this very long.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I cut out all the BS, then I fixed it for you. You're welcome.

"The indisputable fact is there is nothing that has been stated, suggested or inferred that amounts to anything more than someone trying to dishonestly promote an idea, he apparently believes in will make him money"

OK Snagwells you now have the opportunity to lay out the facts that would validate the changes you've added, and charges you've made, or you can slink back under the rock of unsubstantiated character assassination. Your choice.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I represent me, I do not represent or claim to represent everyone. You obviously do not represent anyone, you have not been doing this very long.

Peace

Thanks for the spelling correction. You are correct, I don't represent anyone, but I respect those I'm associated with and try not to do anything that would needlessly embarrass them, especially just to try and make myself sound important.

I've been doing "this" long enough to recognize smoke and BS when I come across them.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

"The indisputable fact is there is nothing that has been stated, suggested or inferred that amounts to anything more than someone trying to dishonestly promote an idea, he apparently believes in will make him money"

OK Snagwells you now have the opportunity to lay out the facts that would validate the changes you've added, and chatges you've made, or you can slink back under the rock of unsubstantiated character assassination. Your choice.

Snaqs,

Do not answer one damn question until he answers our questions first. He has made claims that there is a pack mentality and that people are being unfair, but he cannot come up with one damn answer to what comments specifically apply to his claims.

Peace

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Excuse me, Ed, I cut out most of your superflous BS in the interest of space. To question anyone's motivation is not a problem, and I've never suggested it was. It's when you decide to include your own speculation as answers to your questions, that gets close to and over the line.

Asking a question is not usually a problem. It becomes a problem when you start thinking you can demand answers and everyone else is required to respond to thos demands. When, how and why to respond to any question is entirely up to the person being questioned. Someone may choose to decline to answer a question, because they might think it stupid, leading, not like the tone in which it was asked or otherwise not worthy of answering, which doesn't give the questioner license to substitute whatever answer they might imagine as being possible or presuming what the answers should be.

Know you are missing the point. Coach Bryan's initative will fail because has failed to appeal to the audience he needed on the level they play. The Rules Committee is a conservative organization charged with carefully thinking through the rules. The A-11 is an embrassment to them to think they could have missed the loophole. Then Coach Bryan's publicity campaign that will "revolutionize" football is an in your face move. Add to that, reporters from the New York Times and ESPN touting the A-11 while several states are making it illegal.

Coach Bryan should be willing to answer questions, in fact, should solicit questions from this board or other officials organizations and give solid answers to bolster his case. Quoting a 50 year official versus gaining the support of a group of officials would be more powerful. I cannot and will not speak for those beside myself who are against the A-11, the perceived attitude of Coach Bryan to choose not to address our issues is what I believe has led to the negative comments expressed here.

BTW. What you call superfluous BS is actually part of a well thought out response which I wish you would engage rather than writing rambling essays devoid of actual content.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Thanks for the spelling correction. You are correct, I don't represent anyone, but I respect those I'm associated with and try not to do anything that would needlessly embarrass them, especially just to try and make myself sound important.

I've been doing "this" long enough to recognize smoke and BS when I come across them.

To the point that you cannot give one example of things you consider BS or where the smoke is coming from?

I guess you need to look in the mirror, because all you have said has been total BS.

Peace

[daggo66]

ajmc, I'm just curious, are there any direct questions at all that you will answer? Is there a particular reason you choose not to answer the last question I posted?

[asdf]

He'll never answer the questions.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by daggo66

ajmc, I'm just curious, are there any direct questions at all that you will answer? Is there a particular reason you choose not to answer the last question I posted?

I'll try and answer any rational question, I'm able to answer. If you are referring to your question, "Now, taking into account all that you stated above, why do you think he would join an officials forum in order to promote and make those claims?", I really can't give you an answer because I have no idea why coach Bryan does anything, so I obviously can't apeak for him, which of course, you should have realized before you asked the question.

I have never spoken with him about anything, so why whould you expect me to provide such an answer? Rather than speculate about what he might have thought, might have meant, might have intended, might have wanted to do or accomplish, doesn't it make a lot more sense for me to say nothing?

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'll try and answer any rational question, I'm able to answer. If you are referring to your question, "Now, taking into account all that you stated above, why do you think he would join an officials forum in order to promote and make those claims?", I really can't give you an answer because I have no idea why coach Bryan does anything, so I obviously can't apeak for him, which of course, you should have realized before you asked the question.

I have never spoken with him about anything, so why whould you expect me to provide such an answer? Rather than speculate about what he might have thought, might have meant, might have intended, might have wanted to do or accomplish, doesn't it make a lot more sense for me to say nothing?

Read the question again, this time for comprehension. I did not ask you to speak for KB. I asked you to speak for yourself. I asked why do you think he would join an officials' forum in order to promote and make those claims. I am looking for your opinion. It's a valid question. Many of us have stated our opinions and I will be glad to offer mine again. I'm just curious about your opinion and I think it would be interesting.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

BTW. What you call superfluous BS is actually part of a well thought out response which I wish you would engage rather than writing rambling essays devoid of actual content.

Ed, My apologies if you consider this response redundant, but I must assume previous attempts were not clear enough for you. I do not particularly care for the concept of the A-11 offense, and never have. There is no question in my mind that this approach is a carefully crafted attempt to utilize the existing numbering exception to accomplish an objective that was never originally considered, so I'm not competent to argue in it's favor.

However, I do not believe that suggesting an approach not previously considered in any way abuses the rule or takes an inappropriate advantage of it. The NFHS apparently agrees that there is nothing in the current wording of the rule that renders it illegal, and that the current language provides a glaring loophole.

The remedy is relatively simple; if the rule makers determine this loophole to be prohibitive they have the ultimate power to close it by ammending the language of the rule. Arguments, many of which seem appropriate and valid, have been aggressively make to support those objections. Expanding beyond relevant objections to include insult, innuendo, personal attacks regarding motivations that are completely and totally unsubstantiated only detracts from the debate.

Regarding the offense itself, I don't see where it violates any current rules, although I believe to be effective, it requires such a high level of consistent precise compliance with several other rules (formations, shifts and motion) to render it impractical at the High School level.

Why Coach Bryan chooses not to answer specific questions, why he has, in your judgment, chosen not to ask specific questions or interact with other official's organizations or address your specific "issues" is totally beyond my vision. I might mention that other contributors to these forums criticise him for trying to interact, and dialogue with officials.

Just a guess, but perhaps the fact that many of his inquiries, or offerings, tend to generate responses that characterize his interests in extremely negative terms and twist and turn his observations into ulterior motivations and subjective accusations may have a bearing on his reluctance.

If you believe his actions, or lack thereof, have been detrimental to his cause that is an entirely rational conclusion well within your grasp. That does not, in my humble opinion however, provide you, or anyone else who may feel opposed to Coach Bryan or his A-11 offense idea, license to question his integrity, challenge his personal honesty, insult, mock or demean him, especially on a forum that is intended to be recognized as a gathering place for professional football officials to share ideas related to the rules and the game of football. It has always been my understanding that we are, and well should be, above that level of petty behavior.

[daggo66]

Who are you and what have you done with ajmc?